If I were in Wisconsin, I'd look to get out. My perhaps naive view was that the upper-midwestern states--Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa--had pretty good governance. But Sumi is an embarrassment to judging. And I don't think she's atypical, based on the lack of controversy.

What does it mean to say that a law is not in effect? Does she mean that non-parties are bound to her determination of the law? Is she that dumb?

Sumi has left off her judging job and has gone to agitating and issuing a fake decree that she clearly has no authority to make. Talk about disrespect for the law. A rogue political hac judge acting as if she is empowered to stop State Law enactments is truly shameful. She must expect Kloppenburg will cover her illegal acts for her on appeal.

No judge has the legal right to take the action she has. She is extrajudicial.

I could care less how nice she is. When she breaks the law, fuck the bitch.

It's time to buy guns. When you cannot trust the fucking courts to abide by the law, when the police are participating in union threats, it's time to buy guns.

Or, the people on the correct side of this could do what the fucking union thugs are doing, and make shit for Judge Sumi. The goddammned fucking unions believe in that shit. They started this. It's time to fuck their lives back.

Where are the Republicans in all this? Didn't we vote them into office because we were tired of this kind of shit? It feels to me like they're just rolling over and resigning themselves to lose this fight. Do they have any plan at all to WIN?

And the reason the 'sconsin GOPpers don't simply repass the law, giving plenty of notice is what, exactly?

Two reasons:

1) It would do no good. The law was passed and went into effect in a perfectly legal manner, and yet is being blocked by a baseless lawsuit. Why would passing it again not result in another baseless lawsuit?

2) It would be an extremely bad precedent, that would encourage more baseless lawsuits.

Why hasn't Sumi recused herself due to her connections with the unions?

The same reason Scalia did not recuse himself in Bush v. Gore despite his kids' working for Bush's law firms, and the same reason Scalia did not recuse himself in RICHARD B. CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL., despite his being an old friend of Cheney and a (at that time) recent hunting buddy and Air Force Two passenger. Judges cannot live their lives in a vacuum, isolated from all human contact.

I have appeared before her at least 50 times. How many times have any of you? I have. Not 50 times, but a few. Thoughtful? I'll give her that. Intelligent? Let's just say that my experience is that she does not seem to grasp the art and science of statutory constrtuction.

I think that, in my cases, she tried to be fair, but didn't really understand the law (nor truly seem to care much about it). She seemed to be applying more of a "gut-level justice," which is no justice at all, IMHO. If we don't all agree on a basic understanding of rules of the game before we enter the legal arena, the game is doomed to be unjust from the start, whatever the actual outcome. Anything could happen, with no need to justify it under applicalbe law.

Sumi is essentially saying that the run did not score because Walker did not step on second base. Why does he not simply run back to second and rectify the problem?

Because everyone knows that he did step on second, and everyone knows that if he does run back to second to rectify the non-problem then she will say that he didn't step on first, or third, or that he left the baseline or something else.

Dale...Why not use all of your anger to support the GOP candidates in Wisconsin elections. Threatening to use guns in electoral politics is not really a smart idea. To repeat those kinds of threats here makes you look like our newest Moby.

If they do so, it gives tacit approval that a judge has this power in the first place.

That seems to be the current state of the law. Wisconsin's Supreme Court already decided that the Open Meetings Law applies to Legislature subcommittees. The state open meetings law requires the AG or local DA to take alleged violations to court.

19.87 Legislative meetings. This subchapter shall apply toall meetings of the senate and assembly and the committees, subcommittees and other subunits thereof, except that:. . . .(2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.

And, of course, Senate Rule 93 provides, in pertinent part:

Senate Rule 93(2) A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and a bulletin of committee hearings may not be published.

(3) The daily calendar is in effect immediately upon posting on the legislative bulletin boards. The calendar need not be distributed..

So, how, exactly, did the legislature violate the open meetings law again?

Regular working people (i.e., not public employee union thugs) should storm the courthouse and prevent any proceedings from taking place, put up stupid signs and chant and bang drums and act like childish idiot retard leftoids until they get their way. Apparently, that's effective.

Lawgirl's comment rings true of bad trial judges that I have seen in action. They will make legally impossible rulings to let the Lawyers know they are the boss. It is saying to the lawyer being one upped, "Your client will not spend the time and money to appeal this illegal act of mine, so I've gotcha". So it is no wonder that she threatened the lawyers to keep quiet about her conduct here. Word to the wise: it is this type of judicial conduct that means that the Judge doing it also sells out cases for money under the table. After all, who can oppose such a power scam based on secret deals...until someone who has paid them off complains.

See, the thing you all keep ignoring, including you, LawGirl, is that the nonpartisan entity that placed the law on its website explicitly informed Walker and anyone else who will read more than a blog that its action in posting the law had no legal impact.

What? Nonpartisan lawyers who are specifically charged with advising the Legislature as to the impact of proposed legislation actually analyzed the act in the same way Sumi did? How dare they? Must be leftist thugs (can you guys come up with something more original than that phrase or bitch).

Anyone who claims this issue is simple is simplistic and ignorant. Circuit court judges are charged with making initial determinations subject to review by a higher court. Not only is Sumi's judgment in this case legally supportable, it is the same position that many independent lawyers and advisers to the Legislature have come to. Ultimately, it could be overturned, but if so, it will not be because it was an obvious error or contrary to precedent.

The real reason Walker and the Fitzers won't simply provide proper notice and revote is that they know they no longer have the votes to pass it. Pure and simple, and Fitzgerald said as much to Greta Van Sustern. Apparently when the people (and the legislators) learned about the ridiculous provisions in this bill, they made their displeasure known. And that, my friends, is what democracy should have looked like from the very beginning, rather than trying to shove a 1,000+ page bill through without sufficient time for public review and comment.

I'm not going to go research whether the relevant law in 1976 contained the exception in today's open meetings law nor whether that case is on point (I'm guessing one or both of these propositions will prove untrue), until you explain to me why Wis. Stats. 19.87(2) somehow does not mean what I think it means.

As a refresher:19.87(2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.

And, of course, Senate Rule 93 does not require the same amount of notice as Wis. Stats. 19.81 et seq. In fact, all it requires is posting on the legislative bulletin board. E-mailing the AWOL senators was a courtesy.

There's nothing in the Wisconsin constitution that says laws have to be submitted to referendum.

I was just agreeing with st's The will of the voters don't mean shit in Wisconsin, does it? Not when Republicans control the legislature and the governorship. Then they can pass any damnfool thing they want, irrespective of what the voters want.

I already posted this so I will just copy paste a summary of the rationale the Wis Sup Ct used:

Courts have power to investigate if the legislature has exceeded its jurisdiction, In re Falvey (1858), 7 Wis. 528. Courts have power to construe statutes: The legislature limited its power to change their rules of proceedings even when embodied in statutes, by declaring its intent to comply to the fullest extent with the open meetings law, and by making itself liable for violations with forfeitures, in order to preserve representative government by fully informing the electorate, in conformance with article IV, section 10 of the Wisconsin constitution.

I was just agreeing with st's The will of the voters don't mean shit in Wisconsin, does it? Not when Republicans control the legislature and the governorship. Then they can pass any damnfool thing they want, irrespective of what the voters want.

You're speaking for yourself, thug. You're just one voter.

The voters of the state of Wisconsin elected Walker and a Republican assembly.

And, you refuse to abide by the election, which makes you a thug.

I say, after the next election, under your rules, Republicans are justified in using physical force to prevent any Democrats from being seated in the governorship or the assembly.

"If weeks of huge protests and discussion of nothing else in local media DOESN'T qualify for sufficent public review, what the hell does?"

It does qualify for sufficient public review, which is why the legislature now can't pass it! What they tried to do, of course, was to shove it down everyone's throats without understanding the impact. Now that time has passed and the bill has been proerly vetted, they can't pass it, because the very republicans who were willin gto march to Walker's orders are no longer willing to do so.

This explains a lot about your analytical methods. You're WRONG. Reading constitutions and statutes (you know, black letter law) is how we learn about the law. Reading case law only helps when the black letter law is unclear, whether on its face, or as applied.

I still have not heard how 19.87(2) - black letter law - does not mean what I think it means.

It does qualify for sufficient public review, which is why the legislature now can't pass it! What they tried to do, of course, was to shove it down everyone's throats without understanding the impact. Now that time has passed and the bill has been proerly vetted, they can't pass it, because the very republicans who were willin gto march to Walker's orders are no longer willing to do so.

Another damned thug.

Democrats don't have to abide by the results of elections.

We've heard that shit a thousand times. Do you want to settle things with guns and bombs, idiot?

19.81(3) (3) In conformance with article IV, section 10, of the constitution, which states that the doors of each house shall remain open, except when the public welfare requires secrecy, it is declared to be the intent of the legislature to comply to the fullest extent with this subchapter.

19.81(4) (4) This subchapter shall be liberally construed to achieve the purposes set forth in this section, and the rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed shall be limited to the enforcement of forfeitures and shall not otherwise apply to actions brought under this subchapter or to interpretations thereof.

Construing the statute, the Wis Sup Ct concluded that the legislature cannot make these sweeping statements in the beginning, and yet weasel out of them in 19.87.

@lawyapalooza:Now that time has passed and the bill has been proerly vetted, they can't pass it, because the very republicans who were willin gto march to Walker's orders are no longer willing to do so.

They passed it once already, fully legally, according to the open meetings provision that only requires 2 hours notice in unusual circumstances.

Having to pass it AGAIN is bullshit. Someone like you will gin up another phony reason to sue, and then you will say "apss it again".

And of course it will never come to a vote because the Democrats will flee the state again!

Lawyap- nice to read your comments here as you join the discussion with reasoned evidence to counter some of the slug shouts. As you pointed out the reason Walker will not try to pass the bill again is because he cannot get enough votes this time. And if the public had been aware of all the elements of this bill, it would not have passed the first time, as seen by the once Republicans who now have second thoughts about Walker.

This could all be solved easily by re-noticing and re-voting on the bill. The silent majority would appreciate that too I would think. It's obvious this judge can't be trusted. She shops at gourmet organic food stores. What the fuck!?

You are correct that the courts can enforce the Open Meetings law against the legislature via fines or other penalties. What the courts can't do is overturn the laws passed in those meetings.

In La Follette v. Stitt ( 114 Wis. 2d 358 (1983)), the court said: “If the legislature fails to follow self-adopted procedural rules in enacting legislation, and such rules are not mandated by the constitution, courts will not intervene to declare the legislation invalid.”

This could all be solved easily by re-noticing and re-voting on the bill. The silent majority would appreciate that too I would think. It's obvious this judge can't be trusted. She shops at gourmet organic food stores. What the fuck!?

Another low-life thug who refuses to abide by the results of elections.

now why don't you find the part that says Wisconsin has a referendum process

13.175 Referenda. Every proposal for legislation which is to be submitted to the voters for their approval or for an expression of their opinion including, without limitation because of enumeration, proposed constitutional amendments, advisory referenda, and legislation designed to become effective only after ratification by the voters shall include a complete statement of the referendum question upon which the voters shall be requested to vote in the form prescribed under s. 5.64 (2). No such proposal shall be passed by either house of the legislature unless it contains the precise wording of the referendum question which is to be submitted to the voters for their approval, expression of opinion or ratification.

fls, I looked up STATE EX REL. LYNCH v. CONTA, 71 Wis.2d 662 (1976) just for kicks and giggles, and note that they discussed two exceptions to the open meetings statute (meetings of partisan causcases and meetings relating to the enactment of legislative rules) - neither of which is close to the one currently codified at 19.87(2). Not only that, but hte court's last line sums up its opinion, and acknowledges that there are exceptions to teh open meetings law (even back then):

By the Court. — It is declared and adjudged that sec. 66.77, Stats., is applicable to legislative proceedings subject to certain expressed statutory exceptions. It is further adjudged that the respondents and necessary parties respectively were not in violation of said statute on March 11, 1975 and April 24, 1975.

They passed it once already, fully legally, according to the open meetings provision that only requires 2 hours notice in unusual circumstances....

And of course it will never come to a vote because the Democrats will flee the state again!

They actually didn't give 2-hours notice. It was in the testimony from Tuesday. There's no need for the Dems to leave the state again - they've accomplished what they set out to do, which was to allow vetting of the bill. That's happened. They're not going anywhere.

"Your only prescription is "pass bill over and over until lawyers are too tired too file lawsuits against it", which is a totally imaginary standard."

No, my prescription is to:

1. provide public notice consistent with the laws of Wisconsin

2. Allow adequate time for public hearing and debate.

3. Provide each legislator the opportunity to vote, whether or not a majority has already been reached.

4. Publish the law properly.

Had the Fitz boys followed that simple prescription, the law would be valid and while people could still bitch about it, aside from recall votes, they couldn't seek redress. The above process has been followed hundreds of times a year, for decades. They know how to do it legally, and they did not do so in this case. As a consequence, people had the time to study the bill, and it apparently will not pass on a clean vote.

lawgirl -- I assume that means paralegal? The Conta court decided that courts had jurisdiction over this matter, and that the open meetings law applied to legislative subcommittees, but in this particular case the meeting fell under the partisan caucus exception.

@fls: The law you cited is irrelevant; the referendum is at the option of the legislature, and citizens do not have the power to initiate one. The referendum must be written into the law from the beginning, at the legislature's option.

Now wonder you left law school.

Again, you cannot summon consitutional provisions out of the ass of your indignation, jackass.

fls said: Construing the statute, the Wis Sup Ct concluded that the legislature cannot make these sweeping statements in the beginning, and yet weasel out of them in 19.87.

If you're talking about Conta, you should get a fire extinguisher ready - because your pants are on fire.

If you're not taking about Conta, you should try to be clearer about which opinion you're referring to, when there are so many different judicial opinions being discussed. Context makes it appear that you are talking about Conta here.

3. Only a quorum is required by law, the fleebaggers would have had time to vote if they hadn;t run to Illinois. You want to make up laws like fls.

4. Done.

You have triumphantley refuted yourself.

@kate

they had two hours notice, if the fleebaggers had been in the capitol they'd have seen it posted on the board two hours before the vote. Since they ran to illinois, they had to hear about it by email. Their own fault.

lawyap says: Because the meetings were not caucuses and were not creating legislative rules, the exceptions to the open meetings law. And your cited exception to open meetings law in this case is?

SIGH . . . are you being deliberately thick? How many times do I need to post the same statute and same argument? I'm talking about Wis. Stast. sec. 19.87(2).

Borrowing from my own earlier post:

19.87 Legislative meetings. This subchapter shall apply toall meetings of the senate and assembly and the committees, subcommittees and other subunits thereof, except that:. . . .(2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.

And, of course, Senate Rule 93 provides, in pertinent part:

Senate Rule 93(2) A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and a bulletin of committee hearings may not be published.

(3) The daily calendar is in effect immediately upon posting on the legislative bulletin boards. The calendar need not be distributed.

So, how, exactly, did the legislature violate the open meetings law again?

Lawgirl seems to have a problem briefing cases; here is the nugget from Conta:

In summation, sec. 66.77, Stats., was clearly applicable to the joint finance committee. The committee is required to conduct its meetings under the open session requirements, including public notice and advance announcement of closed sessions, when it is formally constituted and thereby possesses the vitality to act effectually on governmental business.

Hence my challenge to fls, "get the signatures", which doesn;t work in WI.

Actually tens of thousands of signatures are being collected as we speak. And it's working, albeit in a different way. And leaving perfectly good jobs to jump off the cliff for Walker will prove to be a huge mistake.

they had two hours notice, if the fleebaggers had been in the capitol they'd have seen it posted on the board two hours before the vote. Since they ran to illinois, they had to hear about it by email. Their own fault.

No. Dem. Assembly leader Barca WAS in the building and at the conference committee meeting, where they voted with less than 2-hours notice...as testified to on Tuesday. The issue here is the time between when the notice was given and when the vote was taken, not that the senators were not present or couldn't be present.

Ig -- can you show me where Stitt relates to a violation of the Open Meetings Law? Further, Stitt states it applies only to legislative rules not in violation of the State constitution, while the Open Meetings law is meant to conform with article IV, section 10 of the Wisconsin constitution. So Stitt would seem to be irrelevent here.

"Senate Rule 93(2) A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and a bulletin of committee hearings may not be published.

Sigh. You are either thick or deliberately distracting people from the real issue! Must I address this again?

The committee at issue is a joint committee to resolve conflicts of bills passed by the assembly and senate. Thus, it is not governed by the rule you cite, which applies only to senate committees.

Additionally, the joint committee must develop a joint bill that reconciles differences between bills passed in each house. The assembly and senate bills were grossly different because the senate peeled out almost all of the bill.

You are flat wrong on this one. What kind of law did you say you practice? Please tell me you do not advise municipalities.

Go ahead though, non-lawyers, and tell me I'm wrong. Even the DOJ has basically given up on this argument.

SECTION 10. [Journals; open doors; adjournments.] Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings and publish the same, except such parts as require secrecy. The doors of each house shall be kept open except when the public welfare shall require secrecy. Neither house shall, without consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.

I've been watching and researching all the activities 170 miles away down I-94, and I do have several questions. Perhaps you in the know about WI law would help me out?

1. Are the laws and statutes in the state so vague as to allow completely different interpretations based on a person's perspective? The open meeting law seems obvious to me, but without giving you my view, I'd hesitate to say you could guess.

2. Could the legislature starting the process of passing the bill over again be interpreted as allowing the judicial branch to have control or approval powers on how the legislature passes a bill? If so, I don't see how the republican party can do the "easy" thing and re-process the bill without implied agreement to a court intervening in the legislative process.

3. Would anyone want to vote for any supreme court justice who would rather put a political party's platform in a positive light when compared to the letter of the law?

It would seem to me that in an ideal world, the election for a supreme court judge should have little impact on an individual bill. Indications that it might should concern all parties involved, including the party that "wins".

fls says: Lawgirl seems to have a problem briefing cases; here is the nugget from Conta:

In summation, sec. 66.77, Stats., was clearly applicable to the joint finance committee. The committee is required to conduct its meetings under the open session requirements, including public notice and advance announcement of closed sessions, when it is formally constituted and thereby possesses the vitality to act effectually on governmental business.

The open meetings law was renumbered in 1976

I have no trouble understanding both the reasoning and ruling of Conta, but it is clear you do . . . Conta did not discuss the exception at issue here and it ultimately found that the legislative meeting at issue in Conta did NOT violate the open meetings law.

It's great to be here. I've been speaking to a lot of churches recently, so it's nice to be speaking to one that's so familiar. ...

Our conscience cannot rest so long as nearly 45 million Americans don't have health insurance and the millions more who do are going bankrupt trying to pay for it. I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year. That's not simply a matter of policy or ideology - it's a moral commitment.

Ig -- can you show me where Stitt relates to a violation of the Open Meetings Law? Further, Stitt states it applies only to legislative rules not in violation of the State constitution, while the Open Meetings law is meant to conform with article IV, section 10 of the Wisconsin constitution. So Stitt would seem to be irrelevent here.

Stitt relates to the open meetings law because the open meetings law regulates meetings of the legislature. Stitt does only apply to legislative rules, not violations of the state constitution. Yes, the open meetings law is meant to and does conform with article IV, section 10 of the Wisc. Constitution. That does not in any way imply that the specific rules in the open meetings law are required by the constitution. Hence Stitt applies.

roesch-voltaire said...Shouting nice to see you are Part of the New Republican Order that wants to censor my views, but I have never mentioned guns, only you seem hung up on that. I guess this is your brownshirt persona?

You won't abide by the results of an election.

You're a thug.

You're a sophist who keeps trying to turn this equation on its head.

You're a commie who should not be employed by any educational institution.

This is the key point of the Conta Court' rationale that lawgirl keeps skipping over:

This court is being asked to construe a statute, not to interfere with the functions or the separate power of the legislative branch of government. In construing the statutes as a whole, it is necessary to hold that the legislative intended sec. 66.77 to apply to legislators and legislative committees, subject to expressed statutory exceptions. The creation of sec. 66.77 (4) (g) and (h) would be superfluous if the legislators were not bound by the 699*699 open meeting law. Rules of construction dictate against such interpretation.

So, the legislature publicly bound itself to follow the open meetings law and it later spelled out penalties for its own failure to comply. What we now know as 19.87(2) can't be used as a loophole because such an exception could easily be expanded to swallow the rule. It would be like a bridegroom, promising to forsake all others, saying under his breath, "Except on Tuesdays." The rules of statutory construction will read such an exception out of the statute if it conflicts with the expressed purpose.

The open meetings law is a statute, enacted by the legislature. As such, it can be repealed, or set aside, explicitly or implicitly, by the legislature.

Not according to Conta. Justice Hansen's dissent, which thought the majority did not go far enough, and would have eliminated the partisan caucus exception, makes the rationale against this position clear.

The state constitution in our state makes such self-exclusion from an antisecrecy law meaningless. The majority states that our legislature has made the exceptions and "... drafted them to its own purposes." The state constitution does provide that: "Each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings,"[10] but that right is subject to and limited in our state by the constitutional mandate that doors of the legislature be kept open during the lawmaking process. It is not correct to assume or imply that, if our state legislature had exempted itself from the provisions of its open meeting law, it could conduct its lawmaking function in secret. A constitutional mandate does not need legislative reenactment to remain operable.

Ah, FLS, that might be relevant if the meeting was actually conducted in secret. Then you might, arguably, have a constitutional violation. But nobody is contending that the meeting was not open to the public, only that insufficient notice was given. But there is no constitutional obligation for *notice.*

Well that commenter is new around here. Maybe some people want to argue other things-instead of "moby or moby not". Of course the Left dreamt up that tactic to take advantage of those on the Right that believe in free speech.

**************

former law student-

Could you not argue that the doors were open?

Sumi actually addressed the specifics of the fact that the doors were open but that access was restricted, restricted by the police, and because of the liberal mob shenanigans.

I'm sure they actions of the mob are above and below the law though....

Wisconsin lawyers: is there a provision in the law to challenge a judge's claimed jusrisdiction? It seems some people are saying that the government can't appeal until Sumi is does, but it seems she can keep spinning out orders and so forth without ever being done. Surely, there is a legal method to stop out-of-control judges.

At the point of bringing the governmental body to its collective existence, the members are faced with compliance with the open session requirement. If those responsible for calling the meeting have done their duty, a proper site and advance public notice would be procured. Should a deficiency be noted, the body is forbidden to proceed, even informally, with its business.

19.97(3) (3) Any action taken at a meeting of a governmental body held in violation of this subchapter is voidable, upon action brought by the attorney general or the district attorney of the county wherein the violation occurred. However, any judgment declaring such action void shall not be entered unless the court finds, under the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in the enforcement of this subchapter outweighs any public interest which there may be in sustaining the validity of the action taken.

At least four of the seven Supreme Court justices must agree to take the case. Tom Sheehan, a spokesman for the court, said no timeline for a vote has been established.

One of the seven high court members, Justice David Prosser Jr., faces re-election in April. He served as a Republican member of the state assembly for 17 years and was appointed to the court in 1998 by former Governor Tommy Thompson. In 2001, he was elected to a full 10-year term.

The Supreme Court, if it takes the case, wouldn’t necessarily be limited to addressing the issues framed by the appellate court, said attorney Robert J. Dreps, a member of the political law group at Godfrey & Kahn SC in Madison.

Other Issues

“There are a lot of other issues raised,” Dreps said. “The Supreme Court can decide to address any of them.”

A decision by either the Supreme Court or the Appeals Court won’t mean that the case is over, he said. There is still a question of whether Sumi could impose penalties on the four Republican legislators who attended the joint committee meeting that Ozanne claims violated the state law.

State law allows for fines of $25 to $300 if they “knowingly attended” an illegal meeting, Dreps said.

On Monday, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, following the bureau's Friday posting of the bill, asked permission to withdraw two accompanying motions for relief. He argued that his petition on behalf of La Follette has been rendered moot by the bureau's action.

But the state's 4th District Court of Appeals, in an order Tuesday, didn't see it that way.

It denied Van Hollen's motion, saying it "raises the question" whether the court has the authority to grant such a motion after certifying the matter to the state Supreme Court and before the Court has acted on the certification.

Last week, the appeals court called on the state's high court to decide whether the temporary restraining order should be kept in place, certifying a petition for leave to appeal and accompanying motion for temporary relief to the Court and certifying two specific questions:

- Whether striking down a legislative act -- also known as voiding -- is an available remedy for a violation of the Open Meetings Law by the Legislature or a subunit thereof; and if so

- Whether a court has the authority to enjoin the secretary of state's publication of an act before it becomes law.

The appeals court said it believes the matter now rests in the Supreme Court's hands.

"The Supreme Court might, for example, conference on the topic, conduct research or order additional briefing or argument to assist it in deciding whether to review the matter," the appeals court wrote in its order.

"That is to say, this matter is not now solely before this court and we doubt the Supreme Court views our power as being so broad that we may unilaterally act to remove the case from both courts."

The appeals court said it is "apparent" that the attorney general doesn't merely request an order permitting the withdrawal of his petition, but seeks a ruling on an "entirely new" question.

That is, whether the bureau's action means that the collective bargaining bill has become law.

"The attorney general's desire for a ruling on this issue is apparent because the only ground he offers to justify withdrawal is his legal argument and assertion that the act has become law," the appeals court wrote.

I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year.

And Obama did no such thing.

Guess who said this?

“So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."

What's funny about this is Sumi is trying to exercise a judicial veto because of a supposed procedural error in the posting of meeting notice, meanwhile she's keeps screwing up how she writes her restraining order and having to say "whoopsie" and then rewrite it.

Try and try again I guess. Watching her slipshod ways it is no wonder she thinks the Legislature should give her a mulligan by voting again on the bill they've passed already.

That quote is talking about a statutory, not a constitutional requirement. Statutory requirements can certainly bind legislators. They cannot bind the legislature. Don't you see the distinction?

Of course it's possible for the open records law to require forfeitures or punishment of legislators. However, it is constitutionally impossible for it to prevent a future legislature from enacting statutes.

I haven't read this entire thread so maybe someone has already commented on this:

Huebsch said they still believe the law was passed and published legally."While I believe the budget repair bill was legally published and is indeed law, given the most recent court action, we will suspend the implementation of it at this time. DOA will continue to abide by the court orders, like the department has done all throughout this process," Huebsch said in a statement.

That quote is talking about a statutory, not a constitutional requirement. Statutory requirements can certainly bind legislators. They cannot bind the legislature. Don't you see the distinction?

Of course it's possible for the open records law to require forfeitures or punishment of legislators. However, it is constitutionally impossible for it to prevent a future legislature from enacting statutes.

Then let that future (today's) legislature explicitly change the open meeting law -- it surely has that power, as you argue.

The people of the state of Florida, worried about the issue Sofa King raises, made their "Government in the Sunshine" law explicitly applicable to their legislature by passing a constitutional amendment:

(e) The rules of procedure of each house shall provide that all legislative committee and subcommittee meetings of each house, and joint conference committee meetings, shall be open and noticed to the public. The rules of procedure of each house shall further provide that all prearranged gatherings, between more than two members of the legislature, or between the governor, the president of the senate, or the speaker of the house of representatives, the purpose of which is to agree upon formal legislative action that will be taken at a subsequent time, or at which formal legislative action is taken, regarding pending legislation or amendments, shall be reasonably open to the public. All open meetings shall be subject to order and decorum. This section shall be implemented and defined by the rules of each house, and such rules shall control admission to the floor of each legislative chamber and may, where reasonably necessary for security purposes or to protect a witness appearing before a committee, provide for the closure of committee meetings. Each house shall be the sole judge for the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of this section.

"Scalia did not recuse ... despite his being an old friend of Cheney."

You do know, of course, that the Scalias socialize most frequently with the Ginsburgs. PLease stop projecting your corruptability. There are people of intelligence and integrity. They are just not Wisconsin Democrats, these days.

"Hey, Mutaman - I never accused you of making sexist statements. I said you and Jay Retread are blind to your own classism and sexism. Prove me wrong."

Well:

1. If I never made any sexist statements, how could I be guilty of sexism? My thoughts? You can read my mind?

2. Find a lawyer to talk to. They will advise you that in this country the burden of proof is on the one making the charges.For example, if I said "meade beats his wife, prove me wrong"- that would be pretty stupid.

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh found that issuing this mandate was well within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement.

In finding the insurance mandate lawful, Judge Steeh agreed with the Obama Administration’s position that the PPACA regulates economic decisions regarding the way in which health care services are paid for in order to reduce the number of uninsured. According to Judge Steeh:

There is a rational basis to conclude that, in the aggregate, decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision.

Steeh rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that Congress was forging new ground by attempting to regulate individuals’ decisions not to participate in an activity. In the ruling, Steeh reasoned: “[f]ar from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars . . onto other market participants.” Steeh reasoned that “this cost-shifting is exactly what the Health Care Reform Act was enacted to address . . .”

Without the minimum coverage provision, Steeh states, individuals would lack the incentive to purchase insurance until they became sick, which would wind up shifting market costs and increase health care premiums. Thus, the mandate, “which addresses economic decisions regarding health care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress’s goal.”

Walker didn't conceal his platform. He campaigned on lowering taxes and tax reform, stopping the high speed boondoggle rail, cutting government spending, and seeking concessions from state employees.

So far, so good. He and the Republican led legislature have been in office for three months. If Walker's promised 250,000 new private sector jobs are not created by 2214, I say throw the bums out. If they are - re elect.

It would certainly be nice if the legal process had something similar to the rules of order: "Call the Question" to force this process to completion. Continuing this case out to the end of May and beyond if she can get away with it, puts the thousands of local elected officials trying to do budgets, planning and negotiations on insurance plans for budgets that start July 1 in serious trouble.

At this point we are under obligations to bargain with unions over items that if the effective date of the BRB is confirmed to have been March 26th, will retroactively become illegal.

If the BRB is law, we can keep everyone employed and improve the level of services we provide. If it is not law we will have to lay off at least 15% and maybe as high as 20% of our staff to balance our budget. The high number of layoffs is due to seniority based layoffs and the fact that governments pay the unemployment benefits for those it lays off directly to the state UC division as it is paid.